(01-04-2017 10:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  They need to rework the House end of term limits. I don't think it's a good idea to give Senators 12 years and Reps. only 6. Make it 6 2-year terms for the House and I'm on board 1000%!! As it stands now, I cannot back this amendment.

what about 3 2 year terms for congressmen and 1 6 year term for senators?

(01-04-2017 10:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

I agree that you shouldn't.

That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

I agree that you shouldn't.

That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

so a believer in small govt should become a democrat because his congressman is a buffoon?

I agre people need to take personal responsibility and vote smarter, but if your option is a buffoon or a someone who is the antithesis of what you believe, most will chose the buffoon

(01-04-2017 11:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

I agree that you shouldn't.

That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

so a believer in small govt should become a democrat because his congressman is a buffoon?

I agre people need to take personal responsibility and vote smarter, but if your option is a buffoon or a someone who is the antithesis of what you believe, most will chose the buffoon

I think the way you read my comment in regards to changing your party says a lot.

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

I agree with you on principle, but given all the inherent reelection advantages that an incumbent has (name recognition, constituency services portfolio, campaigning experience, and franking privileges to name a few) and how a big chunk of districts are uncompetitive in the general election due to gerrymandering, it's not so easy to vote them out in practice even if people should take responsibility over their representatives in theory.

I'd support this amendment with some hesitation. I'd also like to see us cut back a bit on congressional healthcare plans and pensions, prohibit congressmen from exempting themselves from specific laws (i.e. Obamacare), and establish some kind of limit on ex-congressmen working for lobbying firms. Having a legislature full of Washington newbies has its benefits, but we have to be aware of and prepare for some of the potential drawbacks instead of assuming that just because you boot out some cronies that everything will be sunshine and unicorns in DC.

(01-04-2017 11:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

I agree that you shouldn't.

That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

so a believer in small govt should become a democrat because his congressman is a buffoon?

I agre people need to take personal responsibility and vote smarter, but if your option is a buffoon or a someone who is the antithesis of what you believe, most will chose the buffoon

I think the way you read my comment in regards to changing your party says a lot.

I see what you are saying about change your party, that is what the TEA party did, but im talking real world scenario where you have a buffoon v. someone you politically disagree with. Most people vote buffoon

(01-04-2017 10:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  They need to rework the House end of term limits. I don't think it's a good idea to give Senators 12 years and Reps. only 6. Make it 6 2-year terms for the House and I'm on board 1000%!! As it stands now, I cannot back this amendment.

what about 3 2 year terms for congressmen and 1 6 year term for senators?

3/2 & 1/6 is just as amenable to me as 6/2 & 2/6. I just don't see Senators who support this flawed (again IMO) amendment going with 1 6-year term.

(01-04-2017 10:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then there's the drawback of term-limits in that sometimes you replace someone great with someone who doesn't measure up. Here in SC we once replaced a great Governor, Carroll Campbell, with an absolute dud in David Beasley because of term limits. Going back further Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings were absolutely great for South Carolina and none of their replacements have been particularly remarkable with Lindsey Graham being an absolute embarrassment.

Lindsey is a closet democrat at best

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

That is a good point. I'd vote for someone pushing conservative policies padding his pockets with a little graft over a squeaky clean democrat pushing toward Marxist policies. I think most people on both sides are in the same boat and that is a good argument for term limits.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(01-04-2017 10:10 PM)solohawks Wrote:  And a simple Google search reveals theblaze.com made a typo.

The proposal is 3 2 year terms.

If its going to ever pass, the time is now.

I fully approve and endorse this proposal.

I hate the idea of 2 year terms period for representatives. It seems like they get elected and before you know it, they're running for re-election. I truly believe half their time of their terms are spent on getting re-elected. I'm okay with term limits but maybe 3 3-year terms instead of 3 2-year terms? The other thing about 2 year terms is that the even years are fairly important elections but the odd years (like 2017) usually are rather meaningless.

(01-05-2017 08:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I hate the idea of 2 year terms period for representatives. It seems like they get elected and before you know it, they're running for re-election. I truly believe half their time of their terms are spent on getting re-elected. I'm okay with term limits but maybe 3 3-year terms instead of 3 2-year terms? The other thing about 2 year terms is that the even years are fairly important elections but the odd years (like 2017) usually are rather meaningless.

That was the intent of the founders. The body of the people should be constantly held accountable

(01-04-2017 10:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yeah, there's some stuff I don't like about it like the clock starting when the amendment is ratified instead of counting back but I'm willing to live with that if the amendment passes and is ratified.

I could care less if they grandfather everyone in Congress now. It will eventually resolve the issue. Personally I like 4 two year terms for the House, making it the same as the president. I would even be fine with 6 two year terms (matching the Senate's 12 years) if that is what it took to put it into place.

(01-04-2017 10:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then there's the drawback of term-limits in that sometimes you replace someone great with someone who doesn't measure up. Here in SC we once replaced a great Governor, Carroll Campbell, with an absolute dud in David Beasley because of term limits. Going back further Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings were absolutely great for South Carolina and none of their replacements have been particularly remarkable with Lindsey Graham being an absolute embarrassment.

Didn't Strom Thurmond die in office? Or at least have to be wheeled out?

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

I agree that you shouldn't.

That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

1. People are stupid. 2. Familiarity and the power of the office make it hard to unseat congressman. 3. Polarized districts means it usually takes the incumbent party to unseat the congressman and parties refuse to do that. 4. Sometimes good people stay too long, but its hard to see that when it happens gradually. 5. Staying too long brings complacency and arrogance.

(01-04-2017 11:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

I agree with you on principle, but given all the inherent reelection advantages that an incumbent has (name recognition, constituency services portfolio, campaigning experience, and franking privileges to name a few) and how a big chunk of districts are uncompetitive in the general election due to gerrymandering, it's not so easy to vote them out in practice even if people should take responsibility over their representatives in theory.

I'd support this amendment with some hesitation. I'd also like to see us cut back a bit on congressional healthcare plans and pensions, prohibit congressmen from exempting themselves from specific laws (i.e. Obamacare), and establish some kind of limit on ex-congressmen working for lobbying firms. Having a legislature full of Washington newbies has its benefits, but we have to be aware of and prepare for some of the potential drawbacks instead of assuming that just because you boot out some cronies that everything will be sunshine and unicorns in DC.

Another good point. Except for allowing some patronage and partisanship in employment, all laws they pass should apply to congress. If its good enough for business, it should be good enough for them.

(01-05-2017 08:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I hate the idea of 2 year terms period for representatives. It seems like they get elected and before you know it, they're running for re-election. I truly believe half their time of their terms are spent on getting re-elected. I'm okay with term limits but maybe 3 3-year terms instead of 3 2-year terms? The other thing about 2 year terms is that the even years are fairly important elections but the odd years (like 2017) usually are rather meaningless.

Two years makes them more responsive. Most city councils use two year terms. This is not an executive position where there is some benefit for longer terms.

Also allows you a quicker chance to correct a mistake. You can fire an employee. Congress has "contracts."

(01-05-2017 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

I agree with you on principle, but given all the inherent reelection advantages that an incumbent has (name recognition, constituency services portfolio, campaigning experience, and franking privileges to name a few) and how a big chunk of districts are uncompetitive in the general election due to gerrymandering, it's not so easy to vote them out in practice even if people should take responsibility over their representatives in theory.

I'd support this amendment with some hesitation. I'd also like to see us cut back a bit on congressional healthcare plans and pensions, prohibit congressmen from exempting themselves from specific laws (i.e. Obamacare), and establish some kind of limit on ex-congressmen working for lobbying firms. Having a legislature full of Washington newbies has its benefits, but we have to be aware of and prepare for some of the potential drawbacks instead of assuming that just because you boot out some cronies that everything will be sunshine and unicorns in DC.

Another good point. Except for allowing some patronage and partisanship in employment, all laws they pass should apply to congress. If its good enough for business, it should be good enough for them.

I agree, except for the, "Except for ... " part.

(01-05-2017 08:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 08:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

I agree with you on principle, but given all the inherent reelection advantages that an incumbent has (name recognition, constituency services portfolio, campaigning experience, and franking privileges to name a few) and how a big chunk of districts are uncompetitive in the general election due to gerrymandering, it's not so easy to vote them out in practice even if people should take responsibility over their representatives in theory.

I'd support this amendment with some hesitation. I'd also like to see us cut back a bit on congressional healthcare plans and pensions, prohibit congressmen from exempting themselves from specific laws (i.e. Obamacare), and establish some kind of limit on ex-congressmen working for lobbying firms. Having a legislature full of Washington newbies has its benefits, but we have to be aware of and prepare for some of the potential drawbacks instead of assuming that just because you boot out some cronies that everything will be sunshine and unicorns in DC.

Another good point. Except for allowing some patronage and partisanship in employment, all laws they pass should apply to congress. If its good enough for business, it should be good enough for them.

I agree, except for the, "Except for ... " part.

They should be allowed to hire Republicans for Republican congressmen and Democrats for Democratic congressmen for their own offices.

(01-04-2017 11:29 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That said, if you don't like your guy vote him out.

If you don't like the choices your party is giving you change your party.

At its core, this amenmdent is undemocratic. It shifts responsibility for elected officials away from the people and on to some statute.

People need to make better choices and get a firm grasp on the fact they are the ultimate power.

I agree with you on principle, but given all the inherent reelection advantages that an incumbent has (name recognition, constituency services portfolio, campaigning experience, and franking privileges to name a few) and how a big chunk of districts are uncompetitive in the general election due to gerrymandering, it's not so easy to vote them out in practice even if people should take responsibility over their representatives in theory.

I'd support this amendment with some hesitation. I'd also like to see us cut back a bit on congressional healthcare plans and pensions, prohibit congressmen from exempting themselves from specific laws (i.e. Obamacare), and establish some kind of limit on ex-congressmen working for lobbying firms. Having a legislature full of Washington newbies has its benefits, but we have to be aware of and prepare for some of the potential drawbacks instead of assuming that just because you boot out some cronies that everything will be sunshine and unicorns in DC.

Unfortunately, the advantages in paragraph one "tilt" the playing field soo much as to make it often, damn near impossible to "vote out" an incumbent.

Paragraph two hits the nail on the head from a lifetime of perks perspective. How anyone can go along with the Pensions for life as well as laws that only apply to "the others" is beyond me.

HOD, you are correct in that we get the government we deserve, but those in Washington have been stacking the deck for so long - once a politician manages to be there awhile - they get so entrenched it's almost impossible to get them out save for being caught red handed taking bribes or sexual escapades..........and sometimes even that can't remove them.

I wish I could say our electorate is smart and informed - but alas, they aren't.